The match was poor but it was enjoyable to watch (for me at least) because it was competitive and neither side ran away with it, also England hadn't won in Ireland for 10 years. It does help if you have an interest in the teams playing but I can see for the neutral the entertainment on offer was lacking.

Agree with this.

The only RU I have ever watched is the 5/6 nations going back to those great Welsh sides of the seventies. I enjoy the sense of occasion that's generated with big crowds and passionate national anthems. The rugby on show in the Ireland - England game was poor by any standard with players unable to catch a ball lobbed at their midriff with the nearest opposition 5 metres away. However. it was competitive with Ireland within one converted try from snatching the game right up until the end. I've never seen a live game of RU at any level but the tension/passion/commitment of the 6 nations can't be denied whatever the standard of rugby is on show. The Ire- Eng game was a bit of enigma - poor rugby but a great spectacle.

Poor rugby?? Well that's a very subjective view. In atrocious conditions a game of attritional rugby was always going to be the case. Some mates who I used to play with absolutely loved the game of forward dominance.
Poor with your comparison with rugby league... perhaps?
But make no mistake, there are union fans out there who will have three more games like that ftom england and adore every minute of it.
I don't get it either. Such is the rich tapestry of life eh?

I think we do sometimes miss the importance of drama in sport. People don't just turn up for entertainment otherwise you might as say well ill support whoever plays the most exciting rugby, attachment and history and tension are important elements. When we beat the convicts in the World Cup final we won't give a toss if its the dullest game of league in history as long as we beat the arrogant sods!

PROUD TO BE A MEMBER OF http://www.rugbyleaguecares.org/ and http://www.walesrugb...-wales-for-2013Predictions for the future -Crusaders RL to get a franchise for 2012 onwards -WRONGWidnes Vikings also to get a franchise - RIGHTCrusaders RL to do the double over Widnes and finish five places ahead of them -WRONGWidnes Vikings NOT to dominate rugby league in years to come! STILL TO COME

The thing is that they don't have £200,000 sat in a drawer waiting for someone to come up with an idea to spend it on. The question is what would you cut to find this money? And frankly I don't think it would be 200k either.

And which bodies do you think would pay out cash for this in these economic times? Everything is being cut back.

Poor rugby?? Well that's a very subjective view. In atrocious conditions a game of attritional rugby was always going to be the case. Some mates who I used to play with absolutely loved the game of forward dominance.Poor with your comparison with rugby league... perhaps?But make no mistake, there are union fans out there who will have three more games like that ftom england and adore every minute of it.I don't get it either. Such is the rich tapestry of life eh?

Poor in the sense of fast flowing running / handling but the condition didn't help in that sense. Don't get me wrong - I found the forward battle enthralling but the game was poor as a fast flowing spectacle - something even John Inverdale commented on. I watched it from start to finish yearning for someone to conjure up some bit of brilliancebut it didn't happen. Definitely a game for the forwards to enjoy and admire. As you say such is the rich tapestry of life.

If the likes of Georgia and Romania count as "valid" then France, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa and PNG also are.

I said 10-14. I was thinking of: Argentina, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, England, Ireland, Wales,Scotland, France, Italy. And I was also thinking of Samoa (who beat Wales last year) and Tonga who are still seen as a draw when they tour the UK and Oz/NZ, are pretty competitive and have fully professional squads.

All of them are 'valid' and I've put blue as Tier 1 and red as Tier 2. I still believe that only England, Australia, and New Zealand RL teams are of that level.

Sadly, I think we've missed the boat. Ask anybody about international rugby and they'll think about union. We'll never compete with them on that stage so why worry?

Our product at club level is far superior and they know it. Let's just concentrate on pointing this out to the masses, continually win the TV ratings war and rub the unionites noses in it.

We should be using our strengths to strengthen our weaknesses.

Unfortunately with the way the world is turning International really has become key, to the extent that Rugby Union can fully fund itself adequately generally off the revenues and support of the international game. Instead of giving up I believe we should follow.

A very sensible post but I have serious doubts that a game in full retreat to its heartlands is ever going to have a competive Welsh or French team Certainly if last years tri-nations tournament was anything to go by.

Like it or not Rugby League in the northern hemisphere is in crisis with the game already serving as a feeder league for the NRL or RFU. As I have posted before, within 5 years thev England RL coach will fly out to Australia where the majority of the squad will be. A bunch of NRL players will raise the standard of the England team no doubt but it will be because players reach their potential in the NRL not Super League.

Some posters on here need to wake up and smell the coffee, and I certainly don't know what the gamechanger will be to turn League's fortunes around but then a lot of posters and voices within the game are quite happy with the prospect of an M62 Small Town game even if it is a feeder league. As ye sow so shall ye reap

Agreed and I think I have an adequate solution. I wonder what you and Old Frightful think of this. I've put it in points to make it easier, feel free to say at which point you start disagreeing!:

1. Rugby League's strength is in it's domestic competition.2. Yet by growing the international scene, this will cause the domestic leagues to strengthen too.3. After all many more fans are attracted to international sport and their nation then by club sport (surely that cannot be disputed?)4. The level that England and New Zealand play their Rugby League is in a professional manner that is worth putting on television, that is of greater quality to the domestic leagues and is worth paying money to view.5. The level that Other International Teams play their Rugby League is not better than Super League and is not worthy of mass television coverage or expensive tickets.6. Thus we shall take England and NZ as our "minimum desired level" and as the aim that other countries need to reach.7. The three 'upcoming' nations are likely to be France, Wales and Papua New Guinea.

8. Sport is fueled by competition, and the greater number of competitive teams there are, generally, the better and more exciting the sport is.9. Getting a good game ON the pitch will in turn raise revenues, attendences, television and matters OFF the pitch.10. Competitiveness is decided by the skills of the individual players, but also the size of a playing pool a nation or team has access too.11. Players get better at a sport by: regularly playing it, becoming fully paid professionals, playing against the same players that they will be facing in international competition.12. England and New Zealand (the "minimum desired level") players play in Super League and the NRL, hence Welsh, French and PNG players will HAVE to regularly play in these competitions week in week out, to become as competitive as English/Kiwi players.

13. There are two ways of getting French/Welsh/PNG players into SL/NRL clubs:

Creating Welsh/French/PNG clubs to compete in the SL/NRL, and making them clubs play home-grown players.

Quota-ing Welsh/French/PNG players in English & Australian clubs.

14. The RFL have tried option 1, with success to some extent (Catalans -> France), or with no success as all (Celtic Crusaders -> Wales) for reasons that don't matter.15. But even with some success option 1 takes a long time.16. Hence we are left with option 2.17. To put option 2 into practice, I propose EVERY single NRL club to have four PNG players on their books and that one PNG MUST be in the starting 17. I propose that EVERY single SL club have two Welsh and two French players on their books and that one Frenchman and one Welshman be in the starting 17.18. These players could have special 'salary cap rules' (eg not included, or only 50% of whatever)19. This will cause the standards of SL and NRL to drop, but only for a short while and not significantly.

20. At this rate: France, Wales and PNG will reach England/NZ status in FIVE-EIGHT years. This is significantly quicker than what Option 1 would have done and is a significantly less risky strategy too.21. Then the quota-ing can be minimalising (say down to 3 players)22. We will then have SIX "valid" teams in time for 2017 World Cup (and with 6 teams we will be able to properly square up to Rugby Union).23. Thus international Rugby League will be stronger (as television companies, sports fans, media and sponsors will be more attracted to the new COMPETITIVENESS)24. Thus domestic Rugby League will be stronger (more money in the game)25. Thus Rugby League will be stronger.

We are using our strengths, to strengthen our weaknesses.

By the end of it we could have in 5-10 years time: a competitive World Cup every 4 years, a competitive Northern Tri-Nations every year, and a competitive Southern Tri-Nations every year.

17. To put option 2 into practice, I propose EVERY single NRL club to have four PNG players on their books and that one PNG MUST be in the starting 17. I propose that EVERY single SL club have two Welsh and two French players on their books and that one Frenchman and one Welshman be in the starting 17.18. These players could have special 'salary cap rules' (eg not included, or only 50% of whatever)19. This will cause the standards of SL and NRL to drop, but only for a short while and not significantly.

20. At this rate: France, Wales and PNG will reach England/NZ status in FIVE-EIGHT years. This is significantly quicker than what Option 1 would have done and is a significantly less risky strategy too.21. Then the quota-ing can be minimalising (say down to 3 players)22. We will then have SIX "valid" teams in time for 2017 World Cup (and with 6 teams we will be able to properly square up to Rugby Union).23. Thus international Rugby League will be stronger (as television companies, sports fans, media and sponsors will be more attracted to the new COMPETITIVENESS)24. Thus domestic Rugby League will be stronger (more money in the game)25. Thus Rugby League will be stronger.

We are using our strengths, to strengthen our weaknesses.

By the end of it we could have in 5-10 years time: a competitive World Cup every 4 years, a competitive Northern Tri-Nations every year, and a competitive Southern Tri-Nations every year.

You were doing so well until this.

YOU CANNOT MAKE CLUBS PICK PLAYERS IN THEIR 17.

It is a ridiculous suggestion. What if the Welsh/French players are injured? What if they oly play a certain position? You cannot tinker with the 17. You can have players in squads, but it is the coach's decision who plays from their squad, not some administrator.

The only way we will expand RL is if we can find investment for clubs in expansion areas, develop a strategy to involve them and improve them, and administrators willing to give them the opportunity.

We had all that with Catalans. We didn't have that with Crusaders (no strategy). The investment was wasted (twice) because it was completely rushed in.We don't have it with PNG (NRL aren't willing to expand). Not much possible there unless a major investor comes in that the NRL can't say no to. I'm surprised the NRL haven't looked much to Japan in this area to be honest.

Until the RFL sort out a decent strategy (which annoyingly there's a great model in Catalans to follow, and even more annoyingly they've shown they can attract investors) and the NRL stop being so insular (which even further more annoyingly they have so much interest to expand), RL will stay in the little pockets it's currently in.

It is a ridiculous suggestion. What if the Welsh/French players are injured? What if they oly play a certain position? You cannot tinker with the 17. You can have players in squads, but it is the coach's decision who plays from their squad, not some administrator.

The only way we will expand RL is if we can find investment for clubs in expansion areas, develop a strategy to involve them and improve them, and administrators willing to give them the opportunity.

We had all that with Catalans. We didn't have that with Crusaders (no strategy). The investment was wasted (twice) because it was completely rushed in.We don't have it with PNG (NRL aren't willing to expand). Not much possible there unless a major investor comes in that the NRL can't say no to. I'm surprised the NRL haven't looked much to Japan in this area to be honest.

Until the RFL sort out a decent strategy (which annoyingly there's a great model in Catalans to follow, and even more annoyingly they've shown they can attract investors) and the NRL stop being so insular (which even further more annoyingly they have so much interest to expand), RL will stay in the little pockets it's currently in.

100% agree, although I do think Catalans are still too reliant on imports. I'm not sure if/when they fall in line with the rest of SL regarding imports.

Fundamantally I think you end up loving the game you are brought up on and play - certainly my mate played Union for years and was enthralled by the England.v.Ireland game.

Totally agree, there are exceptions to this but this is the most significant factor. You only have to look at the members on this forum and the vast majority come from traditional rugby league areas or grew up in such areas. The same is going to be true for RU, GAA, Cricket followers.

Poor in the sense of fast flowing running / handling but the condition didn't help in that sense. Don't get me wrong - I found the forward battle enthralling but the game was poor as a fast flowing spectacle - something even John Inverdale commented on. I watched it from start to finish yearning for someone to conjure up some bit of brilliancebut it didn't happen. Definitely a game for the forwards to enjoy and admire. As you say such is the rich tapestry of life.

Aye, and being an old second rower, I probably got more out of it than most.Actually, I am looking forward to the rest of the 6 nations. I always do.BUT, given a choice.. a free ticket to watch England, OR, pay to watch rovers play dewsbury on the foulest night I can remember since the "summer era" began, ..... I'd always opt to watch Rovers such is my passion for the club.I'm in a very small minority there though I would think.

Totally agree, there are exceptions to this but this is the most significant factor. You only have to look at the members on this forum and the vast majority come from traditional rugby league areas or grew up in such areas. The same is going to be true for RU, GAA, Cricket followers.

It was my early life as a blonde, Norwegian woman in tight shorts that inspired my interest in handball.

I have not seen this years 6 nations but in the past its been simply awful standard and awful to watch. The people I know who watch it are not Union fans but just watch it because their friends do. They have no idea on Union or how or why something happens. I fail to understand how a Full time Pro cant pass bothways. Or how when there is an overlap they manage to ignore it and instead kick.The attacking options are often very poor and often the same- give it to a forward and ruck and maul or just hoof it. I do feel Union players are frightened of playing some flair rugby in case they make a mistake and get isolated and lose the ball in a ruck or something. The 6 Nations for me is built on hype.